Hi Adnan, JB fixed [1] the underlying issue, but it looks like it's going to be available only tomorrow (because of ASF infra refresh delay).
https://lists.apache.org/thread/wl9273wjhy5n0zptlwvyz3bd52313dxo Cheers, Dmitri. On Sat, Feb 21, 2026 at 11:09 PM Adnan Hemani via dev < [email protected]> wrote: > I'm afraid if the CI is broken, we should not cut a branch from this point > in the repo. Let's wait until Tues, 2026-02-24 until we cut the branch. Who > is leading the RCA and CI fix? > > Best, > Adnan Hemani > > On Sat, Feb 21, 2026 at 2:08 AM Robert Stupp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > What do you think about delaying the 1.4.0 branch cut by a day or two? > > > > +1 > > > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 9:37 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Adnan and all, > > > > > > CI seems to be broken [1], which prevents merging PRs that otherwise > > would > > > be ready. > > > > > > What do you think about delaying the 1.4.0 branch cut by a day or two? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 9:37 PM Adnan Hemani via dev < > > > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I've gone through the GH issues and PRs tagged to the 1.4.0 label and > > > would > > > > like to make the following recommendations for a potential Apache > > Polaris > > > > 1.4.0 release branch cut on (tentatively) 2026-02-23. > > > > > > > > Please reply to this thread prior to that date if there is any > > feedback, > > > > comments, and/or concerns so that we can get community consensus > before > > > we > > > > proceed with the release. If there are no replies to this email, the > > > 1.4.0 > > > > release branch will be cut on 2026-02-23. > > > > > > > > Open Issues (Recommendation in []): > > > > * [PUNT] #538 <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/538>: Table > > > > Maintenance Support in Polaris > > > > * No major work in progress to justify delaying the release. > > > > > > > > * [CLOSE] #550 <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/550>: > Support > > > for > > > > GCP service account impersonation. > > > > * I will ping Michael to do this when he is back from vacation. > > > > > > > > * [CLOSE] #552 <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/552>: > Safety > > > > against unparseable locations. > > > > * I believe all the work has been completed for this. Dmitri, can > > you > > > > please confirm? (Will follow up offline as well) > > > > > > > > * [DISCUSS] #650 <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/650> / > > #3395 > > > > <https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3395>: MongoDB Persistence > > > Backend > > > > * It seems that discussions are still active and ongoing, and > there > > > is > > > > disagreement behind getting the change into Admin Tools while the > core > > > > functionality is merged already. I can see the arguments from both > > sides > > > to > > > > push 1.4.0 without the Admin Tools change OR to hold the release > until > > > > there is agreement on these last bit of changes. What are the > > community's > > > > thoughts? Default option (if no one chimes in): we will push the > > release > > > > as-is on the 23rd. > > > > > > > > * [PUNT] #2671 <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/2671>: DB > > > Schema > > > > Migration Between Releases > > > > * No major work in progress to justify delaying the release. > > > > > > > > * [PUNT] #3685 <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/3685>: > > > > `Create_Namespace` SQL Optimization > > > > * While there is traction, we may still be too far from a > > load-tested > > > > fix. This should be a high priority for 1.5.0. > > > > > > > > Open PRs: > > > > > > > > * [PUNT] #2180 <https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/2180>: Async > & > > > > reliable tasks API, SPI, Store interfaces > > > > * PR is not very active over the last few weeks and does not have > > > > enough active reviewers to see a strong path forward for merging in > the > > > > next week or so. > > > > > > > > * [PUNT] #3256 <https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3256>: Object > > > > Storage Operations > > > > * From the ML, it seems that there are still two rival proposals > > that > > > > are attempting to solve similar issues. My recommendation is to > unstick > > > > this discussion from the 1.4.0 release to give proper time for the > > > > discussion to resolve. > > > > > > > > When commenting, please reference the GH Issue/PR number so that we > are > > > > clear on what is being discussed :) > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Adnan Hemani > > > > > > > > > >
